On Tuesday, we told you about the 70 activists who poured onto two nuclear sites in Sweden in an effort to show how lax the security is at these plants.

We didn’t tell you that at least six of them hid overnight at two of the plants: four at Ringhals and two at Forsmark.

They evaded security all night, and were only discovered when Greenpeace Sweden phoned the media early this morning to reveal their presence at the plants. This is despite the fact the operator Vattenfall said yesterday that “security had worked exactly as intended”. Oh dear.

One of the overnighters was Greenpeace International energy campaigner Lauri Myllyvirta. Here’s what he wrote about the experience:

“I’ve spent the night on the roof of the Swedish nuclear power plant Ringhals. More than 24 hours – and I’m only out because we chose to reveal our presence here.

That shows me, how alarmingly easy it is to access the vital systems that supply the reactor cooling systems with power.

The recent report on the EU stress tests revealed that in some Swedish reactors, a loss of power to the reactor would lead to a nuclear accident in just one hour.

I took part in this demonstration to draw attention to how little nuclear companies care about the health and safety of people, and how little they do to protect reactors from accidents.

The gaps in safety recently revealed about Swedish nuclear reactors are an absolute disgrace and a cause for alarm. Nuclear operators have not prepared for obstruction of seawater cooling, for snowfall or earthquakes of a magnitude that can occur in Sweden.

The failure of back-up generators and several other safety systems in Forsmark in 2006 were some of the most serious near misses since 2000, before the Fukushima disaster.

The authorities have tried to access the safety violations for years through soft measures: special surveillance, reports, investigations and revised protocols.

Still, blatant security problems continue. The latest evidence was a fire at Ringhals just a few months ago due to a rushed start-up procedure. An intentional cover-up followed.

The only way to end this continuous cutting of corners before a serious accident happens is for violations to have clear consequences: the offending operators need to have their reactors taken offline, at least until the worst issues have been addressed.

The Swedish environmental minister has called the operators in Sweden, E.oN and Vattenfall, to her office today, based on this Greenpeace action, and she has publicly threatened them with revoking the operational license permit if they cannot fix the problems we have highlighted. I hope she sticks to that threat and free Sweden from dangerous, expensive and unnecessary nuclear power."

We wonder what Sweden’s environment minister is thinking today, now that she has learned about Greenpeace activists evading security at two nuclear sites for more than a day.

UPDATE: It turns out there were two more activists than the nuclear facility operator thought! They were never found, but turned themselves in after 38 hours.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) leighgirl.com
says:

funny they make it sound as they were in the plant but really they were on the other side of the main fence to the place. So many went to jail for bei...

funny they make it sound as they were in the plant but really they were on the other side of the main fence to the place. So many went to jail for being there on the bikes before that it scared them all off really.
Only 2 were really inside the plant unseen for a short time. I like how they make their own news up here but of course it is green peace. My sister worked for them in the usa yrs back and they did not bail her out of jail when a family locked her up for tresspassing
www.opps.se there we have it

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) Rips
says:

Find it amazing that an organisation that is meaning to point out weaknesses in the security of a nuclear power plant has such underdeveloped knowledg...

Find it amazing that an organisation that is meaning to point out weaknesses in the security of a nuclear power plant has such underdeveloped knowledge of the actual protection of it.

Climbing a fence to get into the area you got to would not have caused any harm, even with a suicide vest or heavy duty weapons. Try a bomber and drop some bombs next time, that would cause some issues.

Also, the point of proving that you could have, had you so intended, cut of the electricity to the plant and have it fail within the hour - that is just equally ignorant. 1. The plant produces electricity, it does not use electricity from outside the fence where Rasmus and the other boyo were hiding (apart from the fact that they were hiding in a space on a building site, not somewhere that was in working order). 2. Should there be a power cut affecting all three units, there are back-up generators to prevent a black out.

Of course, there are improvements that can be made to quite a few things at the power plant, it would be silly to think otherwise. Especially after the close call in 2006 and Fukushima.

Do you really think the people responsible for the plant and its safety are not continuously working on improvements? Harrisburg, Chernobyl, 2006, Fukushima have all led to changes.

I hear you saying all those instances and disasters proves nuclear power should be shut down. Is it that easy? Decisions people (politicians and referendum) have made has landed us with nuclear power and our society is dependent on electricity for industry, travel, heating, light etc.

I work where I work as I was not able to get another job in the area. I now work to contribute to a safer running of a station someone else has decided should be there.

I personally don't mind intelligent discussion. I hate the whipping up of emotional opinion not based on facts.

You guys muddy the waters. Stick to facts and work on opinion and making points that way.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) niar
says:

hello.
when i read ur articles, i always know that nuclear power is so wrong. somehow, can i just get a brief explanation about nuclear power pl...

hello.
when i read ur articles, i always know that nuclear power is so wrong. somehow, can i just get a brief explanation about nuclear power plant? i need to do some research on nuclear power. thanx .

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

listenin
says:

That's a tough question, niar. I'm afraid that a brief explanation of nuclear power would be too simple and can lead to too many misunderstan...

That's a tough question, niar. I'm afraid that a brief explanation of nuclear power would be too simple and can lead to too many misunderstandings and to confusions. Radioactive decay, particle physics... These are complex sciences.

So on that premise here are some resources. Get what you can from them; I don’t expect you or anyone to become a nuclear scientist overnight: